ONE WASHINGTON

Chart of Accounts Project UpdateFinancial Management Advisory Council

02/14/17

2

One WashingtonA program for the management of business processes

that are common across state government, and the oversight of systems that support those processes

One Washington Enterprise Systems

Procurement Budgeting Human Resources/

Labor Relations

Financials

S

3

One Washington Program Activities

Chart of Accounts Improvements

Strategic Integration Partner Selection

Facilities Inventory System

Procurement Readiness

Budget System Improvements

Transportation Readiness

One Washington Implementation Planning & ReadinessJuly 2015 to June 2017(FY15-17)

Work Completed to Date

1st Biennium 2015-17

2nd Biennium2017-19

3rd Biennium2019-21

4th Biennium2021-23

5th Biennium2023-25

One Washington Program Management

Program Blueprint

Core Financials Implementation

WSDOT Readiness

COA Improvements

Procurement Readiness Procurement Implementation

Expanded Financials Planning & Implementation

Strategic Partner

Req’ts & RFP

Req’ts & RFP

Req’ts & RFP Budget Implementation

Req’ts & RFP HR Implementation

Implementation and Enhancement of Business Intelligence StrategyBI Strategy

Mainframe & Integrations Plan

One Washington Program Schedule – 2017-19 Decision Package

Strategy & Vision

5

Current Concerns / ChallengesStructure & Data Challenges:• Decentralized data with unclear definition of

source systems for master data• Architectural inadequacies that keep users

from linking, sorting, or filtering information effectively across agencies

• Limited data warehouse controls resulting in questionable data quality, duplicate data, stale data, high level of personal schemas

• Lack of comprehensive business data dictionary

Business Challenges:• Lack of recognized statewide data owners and

accountability• Business Analyst (various positions) focus on

manual report generation and data scrubbing• Lack of common understanding of how data

should be treated across groups• Inability to talk the same language• Potential compliance, security, and legal issues

Creating a lean and well governed Statewide SubsubObject (SSO) table is the first step in the long-run process of getting our data and business processes ready for a new ERP system!

2017 Biennium 2019 Biennium

Goal‘15 2016 2017 ’18

Phase 1 • Built the business case

Phase 2 • Created draft SW SSO table• Developed Data Governance

Phase 3 • Migrate statewide agencies onto new SW SSO table

• Deploy Data Governance

Timeline

Data Governance

Today

6

Pilot Agencies

Agency Project Liaisons

CTS Wendy Armstrong

DES Jamie Langford*

DNR Leah Fenner*

DOC Dianne Doonan

DOH Claudia Regan

DOT Bev Runion

DSHS Mariann Schols*

DVA Terri Goddard

MIL Gayle Schuler

OSPI Mike Woods

The vision for the pilot agency group was to ensure an adequate mix of agencies that reflect all aspects of statewide government including attributes such as: • Agency size

• Internal service

• Separately elected

• Diverse budgets

• Diverse allocation and funding sources

• Diverse spend across all objects

• Among other considerations *Will be part of Data Governance Board

7

Process & Results

Original Current State

SSO Titles

Output factoring in agencies’ replies

Output reflecting aggressive

streamlining

Initial Data Call

Final Pilot SSO Table

Process

Reduction

SubSubObject Count of Current Title

Count of Unique Agency Titles

Count after Initial Data Call

Count After OFM Stream Line

PercentageReduction

Grand Total 21,154 17,657 3,331 1,123 94%

We realized a substantial reduction of SSOs through extensive collaboration with 10 pilot agencies over the course of 6 months!

July – September October - December

8

Reduction Example

SO Remap New SSO Count of Old SSOs

Sum of Value Biennium To-

dateEB Postage and Parcel 113 27,345,680$ GD In State Other Travel Expenses 83 1,378,844$ GA In State Meals and Lodging 75 16,570,639$ GF Out of State Meals and Lodging 62 1,675,670$ EG Training expenses 59 9,027,014$ ER Interpreter / Translation Services 59 7,627,204$ EB Phone Service 56 28,239,087$ EE Building Maintenance & Repair 55 9,612,569$ SE Goods and Other Services 55 (5,663,005)$ TA Salaries and Wages 55 3,168,936$ EF Printing and Reproduction 50 5,744,993$ ES Outside Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs 47 27,362,514$

This example illustrates how the Pilot team was able to agree on consolidating 113 records with 31 unique titles into a single “Postage and Parcel” SSO!

Current TitleFreight Charges (Outbound)Freight ServicesTransponder PostageHdqtr Mailstop PostageRmrs-Remote Meter Resetting Svc DistribuFreight InFreight OutOther Mail ServicesExpress Or Special MailSpec Msgr Serv AgreementsOb2-Usps PO Box RentalOb2-Usps Post Due/Bus RpyOb2-Usps Postage StampPostage-Business Reply MailOther Post Related ChargeUps/Private Blk Post ChgPostage Meter PurchasesPostage Purchases LocalPostageFed Ex, Ups, DhlShipping - Ups, Fed-Ex, EtcPostage ExpensesPresort Services (Sms, Smart Mail)Parcel Services (Ups, Fed Express)Postage (US Mail Services)FreightPostage & Other Mail ChargesPostage RecoveryExpress Mail/Ups/Federal ExpressPostage Stamps OnlyPostage, Shipping

9

Managing Conflicting Principles

Design Principles Guiding Principles

• Don’t break anything*

• Document everything

• ‘Living document’

• Dialogue/Teamwork

• No geography

• No vendor info

• No allocation

• No project

• An SSO is about “what” was purchased, not where, how, who, etc.

OFM may allow SSOs that don’t conform to the design principles, but only if it violates our guiding principle of not breaking anything (*and the level of effort/impact is significant)

Multi-dimensionality

Design Principles

• No geography

• No vendor info

• No allocation

• No project

Most of the design conflicts discovered in the pilot phase were mitigated by adjusting the business process to record transactions utilizing additional AFRS codes/fields.

Agencies need to make use of all relevant dimensions available when coding transactions; may lose ‘click of a button’ SSO reporting, but can obtain same information via ER/WEBI

1 SSO 2 Counties

3 Vendors24 SSOs 4

Projects

For example, instead of having 24 separate SSOs, an agency can code each transaction with a value for each relevant AFRS field

11

Data Governance - Roles

That Agency COA Lead role is critical to ensuring requests are consistent and CFO approved

This is someone in a role who needs information and believes an SSO is necessary to track it.

This is a CFO delegate with authority to communicate SSO requests on behalf of an agency.

This is the statewide consultant assigned to a given agency.

Led by the OFM Assistant Director of Accounting (aka ‘COA Czar’), this is a group of accounting and business leaders from several agencies.

Business Owner

Agency COA Lead

Statewide Accounting (SWA)Consultant

DG Advisory Board

R O L E S & R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S

The board is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations on SSO requests.

The OFM Assistant Director of Accounting is responsible for deciding each request.

Responsible for reaching out to the agency lead to articulate and document the SSO request.

Responsible for ensuring a complete, accurate, and relevant SSO form. Submits SSO form to SWA consultant.

Responsible for reviewing SSO form submitted by an Agency Lead for completeness and accuracy. Ensures all relevant information is documented and ready for board decision.

Data Governance Process

12

13

Data Governance - Form

OFM SSO Change Request Form• Agencies will need to document

their SSO requirements via a form

• The Agency COA Lead will serve as the requestor on behalf of the agency’s CFO

• Need to detail the business justification, relevant stakeholders, and any potential systems impacts

Agencies need to formally document SSO related impacts and requests in a consistent manner so OFM can properly manage the data governance process

Project Plan

As of: 01/23/17

What is changing?

15

• OFM has changed AFRS and will implement a new statewide SSO table in the new biennium.

• There will be new 4-digit codes for SSOs

• Agencies will no longer be able to create SSOs themselves

• New SSOs must be requested by an agency’s COA lead and submitted to their statewide accounting consultant

When will the changes be effective?

16

July 1, 2017

What does each agency need to do?

17

• Review their current SSOs and ‘map’ them to the new statewide table.

• Review and provide feedback and/or ask questions about SSO definitions.

• Notify your statewide accounting consultant ASAP if:

• You have any concerns with mapping to the new statewide SSOs.

• You believe your agency needs additional SSOs not within the current set.

• You have system dependencies that will make it difficult to use these SSOs.

What can you do if you have more questions?

18

Contact your statewide accounting consultant!

The final deadline for agencies to provide feedback is Friday, March 31.